No squeaky squeakies for you ! Court orders man to have no more kids !

davidmcbeth · May 15, 2014

http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-court-oks-order-dad-cant-more-kids-104418604.html

Congrats Ohioans ! You have a few new idiots as judges !!

An Ohio appeals court has upheld a judge's order that a deadbeat father can't have more kids until he pays his back child support.

Really, I understand their reasoning ... like I could understand Hitler's gassing of the jews ... I don't agree with either.

katenka · May 19, 2014

Dude's got 4 kids and apparently can't afford them, so why let him have more

Butttt we don't know whether he is in full custody of them, or what the whole background story is...

davidmcbeth · May 19, 2014

katenka said:
Dude's got 4 kids and apparently can't afford them, so why let him have more
Butttt we don't know whether he is in full custody of them, or what the whole background story is...

Hey, he does not have these kids spontaneously, right?

Gallowmere · May 19, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
Hey, he does not have these kids spontaneously, right?

That's very true, but when a guy has dropped that many seeds that he can't (or won't) afford to take care of, it shows a bit of a pattern. Granted, a court order against procreation is just absurd on it's face, but just as we can all agree that there are some people who should never be allowed to possess firearms, I am sure that we can agree that some people shouldn't be responsible for the care of children (either physically or fiscally) either. Now, given that we don't know the entire story here, I find it rather difficult to lean in either direction. Again, the ruling is absurd, but something tells me that there's more to it.

Freedom1Man · May 20, 2014

Gallowmere said:
That's very true, but when a guy has dropped that many seeds that he can't (or won't) afford to take care of, it shows a bit of a pattern. Granted, a court order against procreation is just absurd on it's face, but just as we can all agree that there are some people who should never be allowed to possess firearms, I am sure that we can agree that some people shouldn't be responsible for the care of children (either physically or fiscally) either. Now, given that we don't know the entire story here, I find it rather difficult to lean in either direction. Again, the ruling is absurd, but something tells me that there's more to it.

Child support is absurd on it's face.

She can have an abortion, choose to never notify you of pregnant status, deny visitation, etc and you're the one stuck paying the bill when she was just as active in the reproductive process as he was?

davidmcbeth · May 20, 2014

Gallowmere said:
That's very true, but when a guy has dropped that many seeds that he can't (or won't) afford to take care of, it shows a bit of a pattern. Granted, a court order against procreation is just absurd on it's face, but just as we can all agree that there are some people who should never be allowed to possess firearms, I am sure that we can agree that some people shouldn't be responsible for the care of children (either physically or fiscally) either. Now, given that we don't know the entire story here, I find it rather difficult to lean in either direction. Again, the ruling is absurd, but something tells me that there's more to it.

I don't know if I would agree that some people should not legally be allowed to possess guns. Sure, some are idiots who I would not trust with a gun ... but they can still own them. Like anything else. How many people have caused issues with saws?

Gallowmere · May 20, 2014

Freedom1Man said:
Child support is absurd on it's face.

She can have an abortion, choose to never notify you of pregnant status, deny visitation, etc and you're the one stuck paying the bill when she was just as active in the reproductive process as he was?

I do agree with you 100% there. "What's good for the goose" and all of that.

davidmcbeth said:
I don't know if I would agree that some people should not legally be allowed to possess guns. Sure, some are idiots who I would not trust with a gun ... but they can still own them. Like anything else. How many people have caused issues with saws?

On the gun ownership: I am talking specifically about people who have proven that they have malicious intent toward other humans, even when unprovoked. You know, those people we carry guns to defend ourselves against.

I may, or may not be talking about people on both sides of the law enforcement system here as well. /whistle

davidmcbeth · May 20, 2014

Gallowmere said:
On the gun ownership: I am talking specifically about people who have proven that they have malicious intent toward other humans, even when unprovoked. You know, those people we carry guns to defend ourselves against. I may, or may not be talking about people on both sides of the law enforcement system here as well. /whistle

These "dangerous" people in prison or are freemen? If free, they are free to own.

Dangerous people (those who injured others w/o cause) should be in prison. If they served their time and are let go then I would say that they have "paid their debt" and can go onto resuming a normal life that would include owning guns.

Gallowmere · May 20, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
Dangerous people (those who injured others w/o cause) should be in prison. If they served their time and are let go then I would say that they have "paid their debt" and can go onto resuming a normal life that would include owning guns.

Should, is the operative word in your first sentence. Refer to the end of my previous post if an example is needed. Something about sky colored lines.

Freedom1Man · May 21, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
These "dangerous" people in prison or are freemen? If free, they are free to own.

Dangerous people (those who injured others w/o cause) should be in prison. If they served their time and are let go then I would say that they have "paid their debt" and can go onto resuming a normal life that would include owning guns.

Instead they get elected and claim to represent you and I.

Gallowmere · May 21, 2014

Freedom1Man said:
Instead they get elected and claim to represent you and I.

That too. Blue lines and lots of green folds tend to make otherwise heinous crimes, come across as fairly pedestrian.

davidmcbeth · May 22, 2014

Gallowmere said:
Should, is the operative word in your first sentence. Refer to the end of my previous post if an example is needed. Something about sky colored lines.

Well, they are in my eyes. As a jurist this is my guiding light.

No squeaky squeakies for you ! Court orders man to have no more kids !

davidmcbeth

Banned

katenka

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

Gallowmere

Regular Member

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

Gallowmere

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

Gallowmere

Regular Member

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

Gallowmere

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned